It is not scurrilous to say that a plumber reported seeing child porn. It is the truth. Here's your proof

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rolf-harris-home-raided-months-3819188

Do you honestly believe it is a coincidence that a plumber reported this and so many women came forward about Rolf Harris?

By not mentioning evidence because YOU decide it isn't true you are being selective about what you chose to tell people about it.

Nicholas Edwards was accused twice convicted of rape. He was accused five more times but the juries found that there wasn't enough evidence to convict him. What does that prove? Do you really think that he was twice wrongly convicted of rape and 5 more women falsely accused him? Or has it occurred to you that he was a rapist (proven twice in court) and there wasn't always a enough evidence to convict him?

As for Vanessa Feltz's appearance; that is nasty and irrelevant. People of all weights, ages and attractiveness levels get targeted by sex offenders. Elderly women get targeted and Jill Saward the Ealing Vicarage rape victim wasn't a good looking woman. To assume that a person is lying because they are not attractive gives sex offenders the freedom to target unattractive people knowing that their victims won't be believed. It also tells people who don't look a certain way that if they come forward about being targeted the reaction they will get is "Who in their right mind would molest/sexually assault etc them". Horrible

People who suffer from mental illnesses have enough stigma to deal with in their lives without being called nasty names like "fruitcake". Or assumed to be lying simply because they have had mental health issues. It is common for people with mental health issues to have been sexually abused as that kind of abuse often effects mental health. Not to mentions that sex offenders often target those who are vulnerable making people with mental health issues frequent targets.

You call someone a liar because they are in YOUR opinion. Not because they have been proven to be. The accusers of Jim Davidson, Michael LeVel etc were not proven to be lying. The juries looked at the evidence and decided there wasn't enough to convict. That doesn't mean they decided that the accusers lied. Do you think that a jury always knows who is telling the truth? Or do you think that sometimes juries don't know so they find not guilty? If those women were proven to be lying they would have been charged.

If you did watch this film you have comprehension problems. I did not mention the plumber incident because this is simply another scurrilous story. I would also refer you to what I say about child porn at around 1 hour 9 minutes.

The allegations against Harris by ten women were not "pure coincidence"; compare the allegations against him or anyone else in the public eye with those made against Nicholas Edwards and you will understand, or a rational person would understand.

Your other claims are equally baseless. I think it is acceptable to call a liar a liar. I did not dismiss the groping of 8 year olds as no big deal, rather I said the allegation that Rolf Harris groped an 8 year old is either a lie or more probably a fantasy by a woman who is 3 sandwiches short of a picnic. The groping of underage girls - and boys - that occurs at American airports has rightly caused widespread outrage, but has it ruined their lives?

The rape of a "harlot" is still a rape, but it is clearly less terrible than the rape of a child. As for taking the side of the sex abusers, refer to what I said about Joshua Komisarjevsky.

If you are typical of the type of women who accuse Rolf Harris and other celebrities I would find them not guilty every time because clearly you wouldn't recognise the truth if it hit you in the face.